The deal is done,
and it's a good one.
January 1st 2021.
Having torn the Institute for Government apart and predicted 'a deal before Yuletide' I must admit to having felt a little nervous in the run-up to the 25th – until the mood music eventually made the transition from minor to major and our screens were filled with smiling politicians – well, for the most part anyway.
The fact that it's the silly season and we're effectively in lockdown meant that there was also time to have a good gander at the summary provided by HMG.
When one considers what could have come to pass (putting aside the apocalyptic predictions from some), it looks pretty good to me. I strongly suspect it looked pretty good to most parliamentarians, because there was very little substance to the criticism during the debate. The government was never going to be congratulated, but they certainly weren't torn apart, either. Mr Starmer described it repeatedly as 'thin' (whatever that means) and Barry Sheerman (Lab, Huddersfield) said it was 'better than he expected'.
The really big issues have been dealt with to everybody's advantage; namely no tariffs on goods of UK origin and no quotas. There will inevitably be some more paperwork to contend with, but according to the guy who runs the Port of Dover interviewed today on Sky News, it won't delay things because it will be dealt with at the same time as the existing checks. There’s a barcode, and then things are checked during the crossing itself, evidently. The quotas and tariffs were far and away the most important items in the trade deal, and not only will there not be any, but it seems the extra paperwork is going to make very little difference.
The other biggie was the EU's level playing field. The EU maintained from the start that if we wanted access to its market, we would have to sign up to full regulatory alignment. This was the 'red line' for them; a method to ensure that UK companies could not gain a competitive advantage over their European counterparts because of state subsidies or differing rules on employment, emissions, hours worked and so on. The EU wanted compliance with the existing rules (which we already do) but crucially, to agree to any future laws and regulations that might be put into force in the future. This of course strikes at the heart of any notion of self determination and sovereignty, and was always going to be a sticking point.
The deal seems to me to be both pragmatic and practical. The UK could not conceivably sign up to a future of trade rules over which they have no influence, and although many in the Labour Party seemed to think it wasn't such a bad idea, good sense appears to have prevailed. As an EU member until a few hours ago, we already work to the existing framework – one to which we made significant contributions. As new rules are introduced, the UK can look at them and decide whether or not to adopt them having made the calculation as to whether find them necessary, worthwhile and so on. There will of course be some degree of cost or like-for-like arrangement should we choose not to adopt something, but the point is that from here on in, we have a choice.
In practice, most new rules are introduced to strengthen or enhance that which already exists, so it is unlikely that some draconian and damaging piece of legislation will suddenly pop up and throw everything awry. However even it if does, and aside from the clamour of those member nations who would find the new rule similarly objectionable, there will be a new Partnership Council which will work to see how things could work better, and to resolve disputes as and when they arise.
Tracy Brabin (Lab, Batley and Spen) spoke up magnificently for the creative sector citing the 'glaring omission' of the lack of visa-free travel for creatives. The Home Office has made it very simple for creatives to come and work in the UK through a new and simple T5 visa, and also for almost anyone to visit for cultural or academic reasons. She criticised the negotiating team for not having secured reciprocity for 'our simple and generous measures'. Fishing was worth £987M last year. The creative sector £111Bn – over 100 times larger. You could say she has a point, but that would be putting it far too lightly.
Tracy Brabin MP, during the debate last Wednesday.
Pic from the House of Commons video feed.
A great deal of fuss has been made over fishing, with the vociferous UK fishing lobby kicking up a real stink over the rights of access to UK waters, the environmental impact on fishing stocks and so on. On this, the EU have move their position significantly from the initial fourteen years to five and a half, and on a reduced catch. All this masks the fact that a significant number of UK owners were looking forward to a hefty pay-day when they sold their rights to counterparts in Europe. Call me a cynic, but that is, I suggest, a major component of their disappointment. A compromise was always going to be made, and this looks like a good one, although I would have also liked to see a complete ban on the ecologically disastrous methods used by the industry.
So this deal is some way from being 'excellent' or 'superb', but it is certainly good – and a million miles from the disastrous picture painted by project fear.
Vision and magnanimity
To my mind the EU team must have shown great vision and magnanimity in taking on board the realities in the UK, and modifying their position to one that seems eminently workable. The level playing field really was never going to be acceptable because it makes a nonsense of the concept of self-determination – the heart of the leave argument. Similarly the UK team has recognised the very real concerns that Europe has, which is essentially the fear that the UK could become a low-tariff, low-tax and low-regulation trading rival 22 miles offshore. You can see their point.
The Partnership Council seems to me to be an excellent solution, because in practical terms, new rules and changes will be looked at thoroughly and the Council's conclusions will have great weight as at least half of it will be the EU itself. Ironically, it could well be that as a key trading partner rather than a member with a finite vote, we will have more influence over such rules than we did before.
The other major issue is of course the European Court. The term 'red line' has been much over-used of late, but this, surely, was a real one. As of 11pm on Thursday, the European Court ceased to have any jurisdiction over the UK. Personally, I would question the intellect of someone who feels that the removal from our national life of a court over which we have no control and next to no influence is somehow a retrograde step.
There are of course a great many other issues, and no doubt legions of demons lurking in dense detail, but the major issues have been settled and the framework for areas such as financial services – not included in the trade deal - appears to have been put in place.
So here we are. Much work still to be done but no tariffs, no quotas, no signup to rules over which we would have no influence, no longer are we subject to the European Court and we are free to trade and to make deals with whomever we want in the rest of the world. There is no such thing as a 'perfect deal', and the closest anyone can get is whereby both parties feel they have a fair and workable framework, where the least damage has been done and where things might actually improve. On that basis, this is a good deal and I have a strong feeling that we could thrive, if only the doom-mongers would shut up long enough to smell the coffee - Italian blend of course.